Should hate speech be illegal?

just4fun

Argument Topic: No, it should remain legal.

While obviously most people would disagree with other people's opinions and offensive comments, making hate speech illegal would be ineffective, a waste of time, and most importantly, a violation of our first amendment right. First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech? Would we claim truly hurtful speech hate speech or just offensive words and slurs, which could easily be mislabeled? Second, what would be the punishment for the crime? Would it be a small fine, or jail time? And finally, how effective would this really be at stopping hate speech, in a time where anyone can share their thoughts anonymously on the internet, and it would be a waste of time and resources to punish someone just for saying, albeit offensive, words.

Nomenclature

@just4fun

 First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech?

This is definitely a difficult question because hate speech is often defined on the basis of how it makes the victim feel, and since everybody has different thresholds and triggers, a blanket law is always going to be inadequate. 

That said, speech is not harmless, and can intentionally be used as a weapon to bully someone to the point of self-harm or suicide. I do not believe it should be legal to do this. Psychological torture can be just as harmful as physical torture, albeit in different ways. In my opinion, if it can be evidenced that you have used words to bully someone relentlessly and intentionally, and if it can be evidenced that this person ended their life as a direct result of that abuse, then you should be tried for homicide.

just4fun

Nomenclature said:

@just4fun

 In my opinion, if it can be evidenced that you have used words to bully someone relentlessly and intentionally, and if it can be evidenced that this person ended their life as a direct result of that abuse, then you should be tried for homicide.

Sure, I do believe that if someone has undeniable evidence of truly mentally-harming and constant vocal harassment, then the proper steps should be taken. In fact, there are several instances of racists and supremacists using strong offensive language publicly, and later committing horrendous crimes. But this does not change the fact that it is a violation of the 1st amendment, and not everyone using offensive language, whatever that may be, will commit crimes. But I truly think that without a clear definition of hate speech and where the line is drawn, it will be difficult to debate this question, but I would like to know your views.

Bogan

"Hate speech" is anything that a neo Marxist objects to.  

Dee

@just4fun


While obviously most people would disagree with other people's opinions and offensive comments, making hate speech illegal would be ineffective, a waste of time, and most importantly, a violation of our first amendment right. 

But your speech is limited in the US in no way do you have the freedom of speech Americans speak of , all speech is limited 

First of all, where would we draw the line at hate speech? 

Well to start I don't think an assembly of Neo Nazis should have any right to March down a street spewing hate speech 

Would we claim truly hurtful speech hate speech or just offensive words and slurs, which could easily be mislabeled? 

I think hate speech is fairly well defined in most societies 

Second, what would be the punishment for the crime? 

Depends on the damage done 

 And finally, how effective would this really be at stopping hate speech,

Works fairly well where I live    Tell me can you exercise hate speech in work? On tv ? On a plane flight ? In hospitals ? Schools? .....how is that deemed freedom of speech in the US if you cannot do it in the US ?


in a time where anyone can share their thoughts anonymously on the internet, and it would be a waste of time and resources to punish someone just for saying, albeit offensive, words.

So you think people should be allowed verbally abuse those who they wish without  consequence ?

anarchist100

No, for any truth to be found in a society, a Free and open dialog must be had, if we think logically then the more information and points of view we have the better off we will be. Truth is under no obligation to be kind, by censoring unkind speech you are limiting your scope and preventing truth from being discovered, not only does this cause a society to be led by false beliefs, but being able to reason for oneself what is and isn't true is essential for a tolerable existence.

just4fun

@DeeWorks
Works fairly well where I live    Tell me can you exercise hate speech in work? On tv ? On a plane flight ? In hospitals ? Schools? .....how is that deemed freedom of speech in the US if you cannot do it in the US ?

The difference here is that those examples that you listed are private corporations/businesses, which can decide their own policies and rules, so they can make certain behavior intolerable. An airline isn't a direct extension of the government.

But your speech is limited in the US in no way do you have the freedom of speech Americans speak of , all speech is limited 

Your speech is limited and subject to punishment if it places someone's life in danger. For example, you cannot just yell out "fire" in a movie theater when there is no evident real threat there, since it can result in mass panic and potentially fatal consequences, such as a person falling and dying due to panic.

Well to start I don't think an assembly of Neo Nazis should have any right to March down a street spewing hate speech

I slightly agree with you on this, and such groups should be closely monitored by law enforcement, however, I believe that censorship only makes someone like a Neo Nazi feel victimized, and makes their hatred justified in their mind. It also creates the "their coming out to get us" mentality, which could raise their hatred of the government, resulting in terrorist attacks, as we have seen before. Also, what would banning hate speech really do? Would devout racist groups really end their activities due to a ban, when they're well known to commit acts already illegal in the US?

Dee

@just4fun

My point is freedom of speech is a myth nearly all speech is limited 




I believe that censorship only makes someone like a Neo Nazi feel victimized, and makes their hatred justified in their mind.

They feel their behaviour  is justified either way 


 It also creates the "their coming out to get us" mentality, which could raise their hatred of the government, resulting in terrorist attacks, as we have seen before. 

That's doesn't follow in some cases maybe , but are you  suggesting we give in to bullies?

Also, what would banning hate speech really do? 

Well we wouldn't have to listen to their bull to start 

Would devout racist groups really end their activities due to a ban, when they're well known to commit acts already illegal in the US? 

We don't know the the full effect of such but there groups crave attention silencing them would do damage as they need to be vocal to get a reaction 

just4fun

@Dee
The point is, we are mostly a very progressive nation, so it's not like people are just going to be convinced by a racist spouting nonsense in the 21st century, and hate groups are very isolated and in small numbers. Anyone can easily ignore such statements

We don't know the the full effect of such but there groups crave attention silencing them would do damage as they need to be vocal to get a reaction .

These said groups would most likely just go into hiding and make their views and points from there. Censorship is like repressing a traumatic experience, it may be hidden but it's still present and not healed. Also, if we decided to ban hate speech, we would end up banning every somewhat controversial phrase, since the diverse political and ideological background of the US would label several different terms as "hate speech", such as "Back the Blue" or "ACAB" or "MAGA", and so on. Banning hate speech would be very difficult, complex, and would fail in the end.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Censorship

Hate speech is nothing more than [deleted] and [deleted].  If someone vigorously [deleted] they should be [deleted] every time.

MayCaesar

If the idea that speech (or absence of thereof) harms people by emotionally upsetting them and the speaker is responsible for it is to be accepted, then all hell breaks loose. That beautiful girl that ghosted me a while ago after our messaging went sour? Did not feel very good. Should I be able to bring charges against her and sue her for compensation of damages? Oh, but the alternative would have been her not ghosting me - and what if I wanted to be left alone and that upset me?

You see, any law that defines your guilt based on factors outside of your individual actions is fundamentally contradictory to the idea of human rights. If it is not the action itself that is legal or not, but its outcome dependent on factors outside of one's control, then everyone is a potential criminal, regardless of what they do. There are societies in which this idea forms the basis for the system of justice, and they are not pretty.

Murder is illegal because the outcome of murder is always the same: a dead body that was not dead prior to the act. A failed attempt at a murder is still illegal since the intent was that outcome.
But on what basis can speech be made illegal? What I say can have unforeseen outcomes, given how complex and diverse human brains are. I can say something that sexually arouses my lover, yet throws my neighbor into blind rage - and I cannot possibly know in advance what exactly will happen. If so, how can I possibly be a law-abiding citizen, when it is not just me, but other people decide whether I am one?

No, someone's reaction to my actions cannot determine whether I am a criminal or not. If I stole someone's car, it does not matter whether they decide to try to get the car back or not: I am a thief. It is the action that can be criminal, and its criminality cannot depend on others' reaction to it. Therefore there is no case for speech of any kind to be made illegal.

Now, if speech is merely a part of the action in question, then the judgement may be different. If I tell someone that I have a loaded gun on me and they better hand me over their wallet, then I will not simply have said something: I will have threatened their life and employed coercion. The criminal act here is not the phrase itself, but the phrase accompanied by the context in which it was uttered. Similarly, if someone is expressing hatred towards someone else while holding a knife, it is more than just speech: it is an assault. But if one does not express any intend to commit any violent acts and simply expresses their feelings towards someone or something, then there is no case to be made for them committing a crime.

Nomenclature

@just4fun

But this does not change the fact that it is a violation of the 1st amendment

Well, I'm certainly no expert on American law, so you may be right. I was, however, under the impression that American courts have ruled in the past that hate speech is not covered under the first amendment. 

just4fun

@Nomenclature
Well, officially, the 1st amendment "protects the freedom of speech, the press (media, news, etc.), assembly (peaceful, non-violent protests or gatherings)". I would be interested to see what you mean by instances of american courts ruling such statement, if you have a link or anything.

Nomenclature

@just4fun

Yes, from what I'm reading I can see I'm very much mistaken. Hate speech isn't even defined in American law, let alone punishable as an offence. My apologies. I thought I'd read a link about individual states having hate speech laws a while ago, but I can't find anything to support that. I did find a few exceptions, listed below, but the general rule is that hate speech is constitutionally protected.

In 1942, the issue of group defamation was first most explicitly brought up in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which surrounded the issue of a Jehovah's Witness, Walter Chaplinsky, who verbally attacked a town marshal for restricting his use of a public sidewalk to protest organized religion by calling him a "damned fascist" and "racketeer."[4] Later, when the court heard Beauharnais v. Illinois,[5] establishing the narrow traditional exception to the First Amendment covering those words which by their very utterances tend to inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.[6]

About a decade later in 1952, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state of Illinois's group libel law, which punished expression attacking the reputation of racial, ethnic, and religious groups.[7] The defendant was charged for distributing a leaflet that rallied white people in Chicago "to halt the further encroachment, harassment and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods and persons, by the Negro."[8] Going off Chaplinsky, the court ruled that since "libelous utterances [are not] within the area of constitutionally protected speech," it did not matter that the speech did not incite any direct harm.[4] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States

just4fun

@Nomenclature
I see, all good, no worries. Law is pretty complex and confusing at times to be honest.

Nomenclature

@just4fun

It is my friend, but the main issue is that I'm not American and haven't ever lived in America. 

Dee

@just4fun


The point is, we are mostly a very progressive nation, so it's not like people are just going to be convinced by a racist spouting nonsense in the 21st century, and hate groups are very isolated and in small numbers. Anyone can easily ignore such statements 

A progressive society  generally advocates for a universal healthcare system, wage equity and labor rights, economic justice, social welfare , etc ,etc ,do you believe that America as a nation is genuinely seeking such a society?

I'm afraid in my experience of living in the US and interaction with Americans abroad and online I've come away with a totally different view regards progression in the way I've stated it

Yes I agree such statements can be ignored and even in the US your chances of doing such are very limited , tell me where can such groups legally vent hate speech like this in the US?

In what way is your law so different to ours as there are so few places to air such views

These said groups would most likely just go into hiding and make their views and points from there.

Yes which is what they do over here , any such views would normally be aired on some of the more controversial radio shows 

 Censorship is like repressing a traumatic experience, it may be hidden but it's still present and not healed. 

Censorship is a horse of a different colour  as such views are expressed in print and certain radio shows, I'm not against book , movie banning etc ,etc  just what's very clearly defined as hate speech which is speech aimed to damage others 

Also, if we decided to ban hate speech, we would end up banning every somewhat controversial phrase, since the diverse political and ideological background of the US would label several different terms as "hate speech", such as "Back the Blue" or "ACAB" or "MAGA", and so on. 

That's not how hate speech laws work in Europe as hate speech is clearly defined. If say you as an individual or a group feel you have been the victims of hate speech citizens rights will tell you if this is the case or not 

Banning hate speech would be very difficult, complex, and would fail in the end.

Well it's banned here and not complex at all as the law on such is pretty clear and personally I don't believe it has failed 

Thank you for your thoughts , it's an interesting topic 

John_C_87

Well it's banned here and not complex at all as the law on such is pretty clear and personally I don't believe it has failed 

Said Mr. No links..........LMAO

John_C_87

What should be weighted when addressing law is the amount of legal malpractice of law which goes with legislation of law. A united states Constitutional Right offers a higher standard by protecting the people for costs and the establishment of tyrannic governing from the act of legal malpractice inside litigation. As it is no secret that litigators have in the past and present take advantage of the many rules limiting lawsuits that can be levied against the state or federal government. Which sponsor such legislation of malpractice.

John_C_87

At the head of this list is abortion which had come from Europe..........Mr. No cite Dee.

John_C_87

Is hate speech so bad it needs to be legislated as against the law twice?